FRESNO – CitiMortgage and National Default Servicing Corp. were granted dismissal of a lawsuit over allegations they wrongfully foreclosed on a property.
Terrance Taylor filed the suit against CitiMortgage and National after his mother’s property at 6301 Phyllis Street in Bakersfield was foreclosed upon after her death. Beverly Hicks, Taylor’s mother, purchased the property in 1991 and lived in the home until her death in 2016.
Hicks obtained a loan for the property in 1992 for $92,000, according to the May 3 court order by Judge Dale Drozd for the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California. Stan-Shaw Corp. was the named trustee of the deed of trust with the lender and beneficiary in the deed of trust as Directors Mortgage Loan Corp. The interest of the deed was assigned to a variety of entities.
On May 3, 2017, CitiMortgage became the beneficiary of the deed of trust while National was the trustee. National issued a notice of default on June 6, 2017, according to the court order. An election to sell under deed of trust was filed in the Kern County Recorder’s Office the next day.
Taylor claims he is the successor to his mother and has legal rights under the California Homeowners Bill of Rights. As a result, Taylor filed a lawsuit against CitiMortgage and National citing that he was not provided a point of contact to seek prevention of foreclosure on the property, which he alleged is a violation of the California Civil Code. He also alleged that the defendants are in material violation of the state Civil Code, which allows him to seek relief and that the defendants violated the California Business and Professions Code.
CitiMortgage and National moved to have the case dismissed. In regards to the violations of the California Civil Code, the court found that Taylor did not make a request to the defendants for foreclosure prevention alternatives and that a notice of sale was never recorded allowing for relief to be sought. Both complaints were dismissed.
For the last allegation regarding the California Business and Professions Code, the court found that because the previous causes of action were dismissed, the unfair competition claim must also be dismissed.
While Drozd granted the motion to dismiss, he did allow for the plaintiff to file an amended complaint within 30 days of the order if warranted.